Everyone Calls it a Baby When She's Not Having an Abortion

Just like you don't get the fact that a person's body and everything inside of it is theirs, and you should not have the right to tell another person how to regulate what is happening inside of their own body. Instead, you'd prefer to demonize women who choose to exercise control over their own destinies, exaggerate abortion to the point that you and other lifers paint pictures of cute cuddly infants being the same as a zygote(which to me is like saying that a toothpick is a tree just because it's made of wood), and then pretend like you and those who agree with you are the only moral ones. Lifers are so high on their own hubris that the possibility that they might be wrong does not even exist in their world. No, it is not "us" who "don't or won't get it", it's you and some of those who think like you, because they've built up their mental wall so high and so far that logic and reason and plain old common sense have no hope of ever penetrating inside of it. You just cannot grasp the idea that your view on something is not inherently correct just because it's your view or because some book told you so.

 

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Just cuz wees talkin' numbas. Statistically, if you can remove the social aspect, 93% of silenced pre-borns would take a breath instead of offer a silent scream. Worthy of consideration?

 

I wonder if slave holders have made your same argument?A black slave the equal of a whiteman? What gave the contrary opinion its validation and strength in saying that life and liberty was a right to be enjoyed by all generations and backgrounds?

 

Which is why if it is not a person…it does not deserve rights……Right? So that is why every pro-abort should be trying to change the law so that late abortion is legal. Right?

 

Yes, if you bring forward a movement to aid more women in caring for their children financially then I imagine there would be a drastic decline in abortion of the 93% range. But we have the right wingers here who are pro-life and are also screaming "take responsibility for your actions ********! I'm not gonna help you pay for your kids!" Soooo it's a bid hard to mitigate the social reasons for women choosing abortion when the same side that's pushing them into giving birth is also refusing to help them after the child is born.

Here is a story of a pro-choice woman who chose abortion. She regrets her abortion and feels like it wasn't a choice. She felt like she was forced into it due to socioeconomic hardship. She even sought out help from one of those pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. They didn't help her, they just told her not to kill her baby.
http://community.feministing.com/2010/04/17/my-abortion-and-why-i-regret-it/

So yeah, maybe if people tried to help these women financially so they could raise their children and afford them they might be more likely to keep their pregnancies. Babies are not free, it costs a lot of money just to give birth to them in a hospital or with a midwife, it costs money to feed and clothe them. And as they get older they need other things as well, school supplies, new clothes, more food, etc. This goes on for 18+ years.

So in comparison to the cost of carrying to term and then raising the baby 18+ years which I have seen estimated around 100K over that span of time, versus abortion $400-800 and then try for another baby someday when she's more financially stable...the abortion is a drop in a bucket compared to having the child and raising it.

 

Junkieturtle said,

Hypocritical on your part if you don't want to make late term abortion illegal. Am I right? This is exactly why I bring up late term abortion…the hypocritical stance you people take by making a statement like you just did…and then say…well I am NOT FOR LATE TERM ABORTION.

Only one non hypocrite on this forum so far concerning this…Pasithea. As barbaric as her stance is…..at least she is consistent. The rest of you are not.


Instead, you'd prefer to demonize women who choose to exercise control over their own destinies, exaggerate abortion to the point that you and other lifers paint pictures of cute cuddly infants being the same as a zygote(which to me is like saying that a toothpick is a tree just because it's made of wood), and then pretend like you and those who agree with you are the only moral ones. Lifers are so high on their own hubris that the possibility that they might be wrong does not even exist in their world. No, it is not "us" who "don't or won't get it", it's you and some of those who think like you, because they've built up their mental wall so high and so far that logic and reason and plain old common sense have no hope of ever penetrating inside of it. You just cannot grasp the idea that your view on something is not inherently correct just because it's your view or because some book told you so.[/QUOTE]

 

There is no denying that a black person, or a person of any color, is a "person". They are there, they have been born, and they have the same innate characteristics as the slave owner making the claim they are not a person, minus a few physical differences. Becoming a person at birth makes the most sense simply because there's no distinction necessary. There is no need to look at two people and analyze if they are a person or not. If they are standing there, and alive, and have higher brain function, they are a person.

 

That's because there are only two acceptable answers for you, because yet again, you only think in absolutes. There is no such thing as middle ground in Churchmouse land, no compromise, no give and take. It's just one or the other, seemingly always. On or off. Up or down. It's tiresome, extremely limiting, and an exercise in complete purposeful ignorance to try to view the world in absolute terms.

Your arguments reflect your inability to comprehend compromise. It's why you keep beating the same dead horse over late-term abortion even though I've seen most people answer your question, at least the first few times out of the hundreds of instances that you've repeated it. People have stated their position to you, but you have subjectively deemed those positions as invalid, because they don't meet your criteria.

I've seen people on this forum who oppose abortion in all circumstances, who oppose it in most, who think it's something that should be legal up to a certain point, and who think it should be legal in all circumstances. That's an entire spectrum of opinion that simply cannot be represented in absolute terms, so I really don't understand why you even try when it makes your arguments look juvenile and ineffective.

To me, personally, I don't care if people have late-term abortions. Since most of them are for valid medical reasons, changing the law to only allow them for valid medical reasons wouldn't actually change much at all. If I did live in Churchmouse land, where everything is an absolute, I'd vote for unrestricted access to abortion. Since I live in the real world, however, in a country with 300 million people and the entire spectrum of human opinion, I'm okay with compromise because that's how you best get along in a society where no one person gets to dictate the way things are. That's how human beings coexist in a civil society.

 

Is it not absolutely true that the fetus is not a baby? There is no problem thinking in absolutes when the absolute is correct.

 

Except when they aren't....

And I'm not sure exactly what you mean with the double negative here.

 

Well working through the double negative here - no it is not. A Gum nut is not a Eucalyptus tree. There are no absolutes - only shades of grey

 

I do not think you know what hypocritical means. It is not hypocritical to say that abortion should not be allowed after a certain point be it viability or "quickening" or birth. Hypocrisy is more along allowing abortion for say rape but not allowing it for peri-natal depression

 

Junkieturtle said,

And you don't believe in absolutes….that is no surprise. It's a crap shoot for you because you feel that morality is subjective..what is right for me might not be right for you and vise versa. Anything then can be debated…

Can you give and take with the issue of child pornography? yes or no
Can you give and take with the issue of rape? yes or no
Can you give and take with the issue of incest? yes or no
Can you give and take with the issue of murder or child abuse? yes or no

So in your la la world…you don't see absolutes.

For someone who believes that life starts at conception….why would you think that the issue of abortion would be anything less than those I just mentioned above? This is what floors me…with you people.

And this reflects your inability to grasp life…and those that simply want to protect it. Its as horrible for you thinking that we want life protected..as it is for us who want to protect it. And there can be no middle group, no compromise on someones life. There is no life for you…its easy. That is why your position is hypocritical…because you deny the woman who wants late term abortion. How on earth can you do that?

Your presentation…your understanding of this entire issue is immature….its not a solid position and you know it. That is why no one other than pasithea will address the late term abortion question.

Yes it can. You are either for life or against it. You either want protection for the unborn or you don't. This is a easy question….with a easy answer.

Of course you don't…you do not see the life in the womb as anything valuable. So a child killed at nine months because the mother simply does not want it…would seem ok to you. You tag on this to your point…"Since most of them are for valid medical reasons"

Why did you feel you had to say this? Are you for late term abortion because the woman just wants one and its her body….or….only because of medical reasons?

Which one? What does validity of reason have to do with anything? LMAO I mean its her body right?

If you say….which most pro-aborts do on this site….that abortion is a personal issue only to be decided by the woman who is pregnant….then you should be trying to fight to allow her the right to abort for any reason…any time. Am I right or wrong on this?


If your belief is..a woman gets control of her own body…then anything should go, right? That is not how abortions laws read however…so for you they should be changed, right?

Your position takes woman's rights away…bottom line honey. You are perfectly fine with….denying women the rights to their bodies. How hypocritical is your position?

 

Morality IS subjective. In order for it to be objective, it has to be fact. Morality is never fact.

And I'm not addressing your questions on my positions on those subjects simply because I've answered them for you quite a few times before. In fact, you've asked those questions, and I've answered them, so many times that you can probably recite my positions as accurately as I would write them. I'm not entirely sure why you debate in circles.

I understand the motivation, but I think your motivation would be much better if you put it towards something that actually did protect and help life, especially the lives of people that already exist instead of the ones that do not. Plus, helping those actual living people would not require you to demonize people based on your entirely subjective views as a core part of your argument.

It's not your motivations that I question, it's your arrogance in thinking you have any type of right to use the law to determine what a woman can do within her own body.

Nope. Sorry. Does not compute.

I do find it interesting that you would throw even those who would agree with you in most ways under the bus because they don't meet your rigid subjective criteria for "caring about life".

Let me ask you this. Would you consider someone who was against all abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger pro-life or pro-choice? Do you have to be against ALL abortion in ANY circumstance to be pro-life or is there some wiggle room there?

I'm for unrestricted access to abortion, but as I've said in the past, I'm equally fine with a cutoff date as a compromise.

And the reason a woman may get an abortion is really none of my business. I'm not going to get in the habit of determining whether someone's reason is valid or not. In fact, I generally make a point of not getting involved in anyone's business when going about their business is not causing harm. You might try that yourself.

I vote for pro-choice politicians. Beyond that, I do not get involved in protests or letter writing or any of that. If abortion were to be outlawed or unconstitutionally limited, my involvement would increase. If I lived in a state with absolutely stupid abortion laws like your state of Arizona, I'd also likely be more involved.

Sigh. A debate with you is like a wind up doll. Each time it starts, it plays the same tune, over and over, each time. As I've said in the past, I'm perfectly fine with some restrictions built into the law. It happens ALL THE TIME! Simply because I like coming up with examples, I'll give you a few more. Try entering a classified military facility while citing your 1st amendment rights to free press. Try carrying a weapon into a courthouse citing your 2nd amendment right to own and carry a firearm. Try having a social gathering in the backyard of the White House while citing your 1st amendment right to assemble.

Limitations are built into the law just about everywhere. If you're so concerned with absolutes and absolute interpretation of everything, why are you restricting yourself to abortion discussions? For that matter, why do I not see you posting messages in the forum administration section citing your 1st amendment rights to free speech because you can't call all of us pro-choicers what we know you'd probably like to call us if not for you getting in trouble. Those dirty admins are limiting your right to free speech. Outrageous!

 

No you don't get it.

Your position is that it's all about the woman's body…….then bottom line you should be for abortion the entire nine months. You believe I am wrong Im anti-woman…I want to take rights away….because I happen to believe the science that says human life starts at conception. You on the other hand….do the same thing….only you put a limit on the woman's rights…because …well hell I don't know your reasoning. The baby gets bigger and looks more like a baby and for your group…thats good enough for you. You are denying the woman the rights to her body…and you say…that its her body her decision.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite


"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

Your position is hypocritical…

YOU SAID…………THE WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO HER BODY, THEREFORE THE RIGHT TO ABORT. IT IS A PRIVATE DECISION.
THEN YOU SAY…..BUT ITS OK TO DENY HER THESE RIGHTS AFTER A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD FOR WHATEVER REASONS ….THIS MAKES IT A DECISION THAT IS NOT PRIVATE.

Your position is hypocritical.

 

If only the right wing would give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about those babies after they were born.

 

Her position is not hypocritical, just in line with the way almost all laws are crafted. Even the laws against killing make exceptions for self-defense. They also make exceptions for diminished mental capacity. It's your viewing of the world through completely absolutist goggles that prevents you from understanding(assuming you're actually serious about not understanding the distinction here) why someone is not 100% for something or 100% against something. You're like a computer, there are only 0's and 1's. No 2's, no 1.5's, just 0 or 1. On or off. Left or right.

Let me ask you this. Do you take scalding hot showers or freezing cold ones? Remember, there can be no in-between, no compromise between hot and cold. You're either getting burned or you're getting hypothermia.

 

Nice grey scale moral issue to start with - because there are no "absolutes"



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ar...-to-tougher-laws/story-e6freuzr-1111116987406

Yes and if were THAT clear cut then the courts would have an easier time - truth is even the laws on rape vary from "At any time if the woman says no it is rape" to only being accepted as rape if there is evidence of considerable force being used - so no, no absolutes there

Again it is relative no pun intended. In many Indigenous communities here "incest" means anyone closer than about fourth cousin. Now does incest apply to step parent and child or does it apply to second cousins?

Murder - well let us just for a minute consider the whole euthanasia debate and how long THAT has raged - absolutes? Don't think so. Child Abuse - look at any internet discussion on discipline and you will see that there are absolutely no absolutes.

i

No, not really - though at the core of each of these issues are examples of wrong doing so abhorrent to the general population that there is little doubt that this is unacceptable but it is the peripheral boundaries that are moot.

And I can understand where someone who believes that life starts at conception would have difficulty with other issues however a lot of people do NOT believe that life starts at conception.

I have cut the rest of the response as it was nothing more than an Ad Hominem

 

I would venture to guess that 80 percent of aborted babies would be taken care of by the government if they werent terminated.

 

Your statement above is an absolute in that it states exactly what the object is as well as what it is not. It obeys both the law of identity and non-contradiction. You cannot get any more absolute than that.

 

So you say JT. I don't disagree that a human life should be afforded the dignity to exist.

If a child or adult is mentally "disadvantaged" where do they fall in your "higher brain function" personhood requirement? Say, didn't the Third Reich begin with snuffing out these souls?

Why is it a law that a woman can end her developing child's life but another act resulting in death can also be seen as a double homicide when someone takes mother's life along with the life within her?

Typically one would commit a criminal act if one, without authority, burned or dismembered a human corpse. Might the prohibition for such acts be due to the dignity that this former(?) person once had as a human life form? And yet the dignity extended human remains is denied a developing human life in the womb.

Just pondering the inconsistencies. Perhaps the law is immoral? Or is morality unlawful?

 

Even those individuals with say Down's Syndrome, or some other type of debilitating brain injury or condition, have higher brain function. Not quite as much as a normal healthy person, but they still have all the elements of a conscious functioning human being. Secondly, in order for us to even be having a conversation about those types of individuals, they will have had to be born, meaning they've already become a person in the first place.

Those laws are little more than an attempt by the more radical pro-life element of our society to sneak "personhood" into the law. It's a backdoor attempt at outlawing abortion, and it's completely symbolic and unnecessary. Any competent judge would already take into account the fact that the woman in question was pregnant at the time of her murder. Even with those types of laws, a fetus still does not have rights under the law, and they shouldn't, because giving rights to a fetus means we should be giving rights to just about every living thing on the planet.

That is an interesting contrast that I have not seen before. Having laws against desecrating someone's corpse makes sense though. That corpse was a person, in the past, prior to death obviously. It had been a person, existed as a person. Think of it this way. You're an army veteran even after you've died, but you're not an army veteran if you've never been in the army, or have not even reached the point where being in the army is an even remotely viable possibility. And even in this case, the deceased was still born, and still became a person just like every other person that's been born. Being born is the best distinction, because it leaves no room for compromise or grey area. Meanwhile, many fertilized eggs in a woman's body don't actually make it to the point where it becomes a pregnancy. Many are lost simply due to bodily mechanics, yet nobody seems to care about those ones. They'll chalk it up to nature(as they should), but it's still an arbitrary decision. Each one of them is also a potential person, no less a person than when the egg becomes attached to the uterine wall. In this case, those wishing to pursue personhood laws are still creating an artificial timeline by which to go by, because they very likely would not make it a crime for fertilized eggs to not result in a child being born. So, those laws only take effect once the zygote has attached itself to the uterine wall. Same arbitrary cutoff mechanic as those who want abortion legal or legal up to a certain point, it just starts earlier. Being born is the best way to measure who is a person and who is not, because it's not arbitrary. It's a transition phase that cannot be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or mistaken. It's a solid visual straightforward change in your life status that cannot be confused with anything else. No interpretation necessary. You're a baby that was born into the world, you made it, you're here, you're a person.

 

Junkieturtle said,

So for you rape, child porn, child abuse, slavery could all be justified. Wow. Wow rape is not violent….always thought it was…but if you don't oh well. I'll leave it at that.

WEll I never expected you would. LOL I present the boulders that stand in the way of your position. You don't like that. Trying to get you at least to admit your position is hypocritical.

I want to stand up for the life in the womb. Over fifty million children have been slaughtered since Roe. Do you not get that? Millions will be killed this year. Don't you get that?

As far as demonizing someone the rules prevent me from demonizing you…but not your position, stance. The position that you defend is evil that is what I personally believe. I think your own position demonizes you and you don't like it. And I do help people who are born. I am trying to help you see that your own view on abortion is hypocritical.

ARrogance? Honey…I live in the greatest country on earth. My country and laws state that I have the right to free speech…I have the right to try to persuade people to my side. We are a nation of laws…and who made those laws? People did…and they based them on THEIR MORALITY, right or wrong. Abortion was once illegal…the country and the lawmakers saw life differently then. I have the right to work to change laws. And so do you. You could work hard at changing the late term abortion restrictions. Your position is that the woman's body belongs to her…so our present laws restrict her. Why aren't you trying to change that? You have the right?
So don't tell me I have no right to protest something. Should the gays quit trying to gain the right to marriage?

You and other pro-aborts are the ones throwing someone under the bus not me. I am pro-life remember? You are the ones who don't want restrictions on the woman so she can kill on demand. Do you care for all life? NO

I have answered this a million times…and refuse to answer again. Sigh…..I mean really you ask the same things over and over and over.

Hypocritical…position. What happens to the woman's rights you so defend during the first part of her pregnancy? Where did they go? Now you want to tie the woman's hands behind her back and DENY HER THE RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY. See you use the compromise as a way of TRYING unsuccessfully to avoid looking immoral. I mean society still says…what kind of person would want a little tiny baby who looks like a baby…killed in the womb. LOL So you whisper COMPROMISE…because you really are against late term abortion…you just can't and won't admit it.

Cutoff date……LMAO You don't fool me.

Oh but it is…because you just denied the woman in late terms a NO if she wants an abortion. For a pro-choicer any reason should be good enough…it has a gay gene, its physically not perfect, its the wrong sex, they don't want it…etc. But again…if she want to rid herself of it in late terms….you say NO.
Because I believe unlike you obviously that evil should not triumph. Whats the saying..."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
You might be content to sit back and do nothing but I am NOT.

And I vote for pro-life candidates. It is your right to sit back and do nothing as I said. I am exercising my rights as a citizen.

I find your position terribly sad….for the life of me I can't get people who are content to believe that killing the way abortion does…is ok.

That ripping and tearing apart a living human being…is something that is ok.

I don't get your brand of morality.

Yes it does doesn't it. THE LIFE IN THE WOMB IS A HUMAN BEING, ABORTION IS WRONG….OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It must just make you so depressed, it must ruin your day to hear those words.

What you are saying here…you have said over and over and over again. You know abortion in later terms is wrong…but you as I said don't have the guts to admit it. By admitting it…you admit that you are stripping woman's rights away. You want to look moral…even though abortion is not moral. This is how you do it. Use the ole….I am ok with compromises….yea right. As I said we are a nation of laws…brought about by the people. And you as a pro-choicer you should be out with your sign…fighting for that woman who wants to slaughter her child at nine months…then your position would not be hypocritical.

Do gays wants limitations concerning marriage? No they don't. And if you stand on the principle that the woman owns her body…the choice is hers……THEN YOUR ONLY OPTION, ONLY….is to allow her the rights throughout the entire nine months and you know it. You just believe late term abortion is wrong…and won't admit it.

 

We just know that women don't CHOOSE late-term abortion anyway. Women suffer from late-term abortions because they wanted the baby, and something went terribly wrong, so late-term abortion was the best solution. It is not hypocritical to give women a limited time to make a choice, but it is not necessary because it will never be a willing choice in late-term.

 

Grannie…your position is hypocritical…and you know it. Unless you think all abortion should be legal because of woman's rights….then your position does not make sense. You are saying one thing….and saying another thing….they don't logically hang together. The point is not whether most women would even get late term abortion…the question I am asking is……why shouldn't they be allowed based on why you think abortion should be legal….the woman's rights to her body.

Paithea thinks abortion is fine throughout the entire nine months….what is the matter with her view on this? Why don't you ban with her by agreeing…all abortion should be legal?